Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler <at> s-und-n.de> writes: > Actually we have more important things to do than discussing > where the licenses should be stored. > But as it shouldn't be *just me* deciding this, just a quick > vote about it. > > From a users POV putting all in the legal directory makes > more sense than to put it next to each jar file. > > So, if noone is against it, I will move all of them into > the legal directory again. > > Please respond only if you're against it.
Sorry, in the last days I only read the most mails without any participating in discussions. Maybe I should not add my comment to a vote thread but here it is: IMO it's not that important where the licenses are stored though it might be a help for the users, but who checks all the licenses before using a package? The Apache brand and Apache's license policies almost assure that I can use the package without "any" restrictions. I only have to stay compatible to the Apache license itself. So the developer's part remain: Important is the file ending. It should at least be one for all as it is .license at the moment, .license.txt might be even better. I'm ok with having a license for every jar, the possible different release times for subpackages like Avalon Excalibur even seem to make this necessary. But what I absolutely don't like is the adding of the package version to the license file. What's it for? A comparison between package-xyz-1.23.45.jar and package-xyz.license.txt can also be done without any problem. It's useless remove and readd of files to CVS IMO. Adding this logic to the test script/check-jars.xsl/gump or what ever is much more clever. Joerg
